'Cause they calculate how many tags must be sold, to reach the desired number of how many does they want harvested in each WMU?

For fellas2: There already are "checks and balances". The PGC's finances are audited each year by the state and by the Feds, in the case of their P-R funding.

Doesn't look like you can answer the question.

How do they know how many does to harvest?

BTW....not directed at you Denny....everytime time I make a post, the board logs me out. Crap's getting old.

I answered your question. If you wish more detail than I provided, find it yourself.

Till now, you seemed to be a reasonable guy with different opinions on the issue. Now you are simply proving to be another mindless Bluebird drone with no real understanding of wildlife management and no thoughts of your own. If you have an issue with the methodology please point out that issue specifcally. Otherwise, you have simply shown a willingness to follow bluebirds lead in criticizing something you can't comprehend.

BTB,there is a huge difference in the camparison you make between calculating election results and counting deer.When it comes to an election,there IS a final electronic tabulation of votes to check the accuracy of the formula vs true results.By using a similar formula to count deer population,there is no final count to verify results !

Absolutely true! You are correct that we cant go out and count the deer. I didn't mean to imply and won't say that calculating deer populations is as easy to verify as my example of election results. When verification is not exact, trends must also be studied and that is inherently more cumbersome to determine but it is certainly possible. Can we ever have an exact number? Of course not. Can we have a relatively accurate number by analyzing past data and trends, of course we can. The issue hasnt really been about whether the numbers were close enough to be statistically accurate (they have been and they get more accurate all the time) but more about the numbers the PGC now considers to be right for the habitat.

Antlerless allocation allotment methodology aside... Im still waiting for the answer as to why harvest goals are higher NOW that stabilization is supposedly the goal.... Yet a lower harvest reduced a larger herd previously???

Btb, you seem to believe that the antlerless allocation system isnt what is our problem, but its the goals themselves. And I partially agree. I do think the biggest problem is the goals themselves.

Having said that, perhaps you could explain why a wmu had an antlerless deer harvest of 16,500 animals... which supposedly reduced the herd by 7% according to PGC annual report.

Then the following year the goal became stabilization.... Yet the stated harvest goals for the wmu was 18,000 antlerless deer.

And still to this day the allocation hadnt dropped to even the level where the last "supposed" year of reduction took place at 45k. It has been 55 to 60k ever since.

anyone care to take a poke at that riddle and straighten out one of the disillusioned armchair biologists? lol
.........................

Lets not forget about the election predictions of Bush vs Gore. I went to bed believeing Gore had the victory bcause that's waht the media projected, recounts proved Bush had it. Just this past fall, it appeared early on to be a close race...wake up and find it was closer to a landslide for Obama. Projections only go so far...I prefer the hard data myself. Cornelius, good points.

Have you ever taken the time to get on the PGC website and ask that specific question? Ther is a page where you can address questions like that directly at the staff biologists

I know when I asked a specific question about why the PGC harvests trees at a rate appearing to be far below the 1% they prescribe, I got a very detailed specific answer rather quickly.

So waht exactly would you suggest to make things more accurate? Yes,reporting rate is abysmal but it is the easiest thing to overcome. How, exactly, would you propose that we get a better count of the deer out there each year?